<http://www.w3.org/2009/08/skos-reference/skos.html#note>
"MAKING CHOICES: EXAMINING MUSQUEAM AGENCY AT STSELAX VILLAGE DURING THE POST-CONTACT PERIOD by MICHELLE DIANE POULSEN A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENT FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES Anthropology THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA March 2005 \u00A9Michelle Diane Poulsen, 2005 Abstract Musqueam East or DhRt2 is the archaeological remains of the Musqueam village of Stselax. The site is located on the west coast of mainland British Columbia, and the original excavation was carried out by Charles Borden in the 1950's-60's. Dating from AD 1250 to late contact times, Musqueam East provides an uninterrupted archaeological record of the contact period from indirect contact through the fur trade and European colonization. This record allows an examination of the European goods Musqueam people chose to use at this village. This thesis examines the glass, metal, and ceramic artifacts from the Charles House excavation at Musqueam East. Using manufacturing and decoration techniques as temporal markers, the artifacts are assigned to a time range during the post-contact period. This data is compared to explorers 'journals and the Fort Langley journals in order to explore Musqueam agency through time. Three periods of contact are examined: Years of Exploration (1774-1826), The Fur Trade Years (1827-1857), and European Colonization and Settlement (1858 onwards). A pattern emerges showing that the earliest European goods and ideas integrated into Musqueam culture were used in ways consistent with Musqueam values, beliefs, and practices. This includes household items and blankets. Only in the last period of contact, when Europeans are colonizing and settling the Fraser Delta, is there a change in the material record showing European impact on fundamentally Musqueam activities and the material goods associated with those activities including ceremonialism, woodworking, and fishing. By comparing what is preserved at the site with what was available to Musqueam people at different times throughout the contact period, Musqueam actions and decisions are given a voice beyond the written records of European traders. ii Table of Contents Abstract ii Table of Contents iiList of Figures y List of Tables v Acknowledgments vi Introduction 1 Introduction to Contact Studies 4 Concepts of Agency 5 Methodology 8 Archaeological Results 9 Glass 10 Ceramics 3 Metal Non-nails 2Nails 6 Miscellaneous 7 Ethnohistoric Data on Contact History 2Years of Exploration (1774-1826) 8 The Fur Trade Years (1827-1857) 33 European Colonization and Settlement (1858 onwards) 36 Discussion 3Early Contact and Inter-village Relations 39 Fort Langley- Why Trade? 41 Women, Households, and European Goods 42 The Value of Blankets 3 Resistance 44 Conclusions and Suggestions for Further Research 46 References Cited 50 in List of Figures Figure 1- Aerial view of Musqueam I.R.#2, showing the Charles House Excavation site..3 Figure 2- Artifact #182, Club Sauce Type Stopper 16 Figure 3- Glass artifacts 1Figure 4- Artifact #121 7 Figure 5- Pipe fragments popular in the mid-nineteenth century 1Figure 6- Non-temporally specific utilitarian container fragments 18 Figure 7- Nineteenth and twentieth century ceramic decoration techniques in Levels 1, la, and 2 1Figure 8- Willow pattern fragment 9 Figure 9- Modified metal artifactsFigure 10- Late nineteenth to mid-twentieth century shotgun cartridges 20 Figure 11- Handmade lead fishing weights 2iv List of Tables Table 1- Glass Artifacts by Level 11 Table 2- Diagnostic Glass Artifacts by Dates of Production and Level 11 Table 3- Ceramic Artifacts by Level 4 Table 4- Metal Artifacts by Level 23 Table 5- Modified Metal Artifacts by Level 24 Table 6- Fort Langley Trade Inventory 1852 36 Table 7- Time Periods of Levels Based on Production Dates of Artifacts 39 Table 8- Goods Available in Different Trade Years 3v Acknowledgments My first and deepest thanks goes to the Musqueam community for allowing me to use their objects and resources for this thesis. In particular, I would like to thank Leona Sparrow for being a part of my committee and for all the time and feedback she gave to me. I would also like to thank Mr. Stanley Charles and Mr. Andrew Charles, as well as all the other community members, who shared their insights at Musqueam 101. Their discussion was very informative and helpful to me. I want to thank my other committee members, Michael Blake and Sue Rowley. Mike, you always had something encouraging to say along with your critique which I have really appreciated. Sue, you have been a major support throughout this project and my entire MA program, always asking me tough questions but also always ready to help me explore the answers. You are a great mentor. I also want to thank the Archaeology Assistant, Patricia Ormerod for all her help in locating the roving collection and many other resources, and her supportive words. To my fellow grad students Cara Krmpotich, Mary-Lou LaFleur, and Sheryl Clark, your friendship and support were so freely given, thanks. Last but not least, I want to thank my family and friends who have hung in there with me through this process. In particular I thank my mom, Chyril Poulsen, who has been unbelievably supportive and encouraging, and my fiance, Trevor Eichel, who has also been incredibly supportive and also tolerant of all the stress and frustrations that are part of writing a thesis! Without my family's encouragement and support I never could have made it this far, thank you. vi Introduction The Fraser River Delta of British Columbia has always been a place rich in resources. Here river, marine, and land resources meet and have provided for the Musqueam people who according to their histories have lived and built their villages here since time immemorial. However, this is not solely a meeting place of natural resources, but of cultural resources as well. Musqueam people have interacted with their neighbours from pre-contact times to the present day. These relationships have provided Musqueam people with access to far ranging resources in addition to those available locally. Long after the establishment of these aboriginal trade networks, new resources from even farther away were introduced through these same networks, as well as through direct trade with European explorers. This study examines how Musqueam people chose to utilize the new material goods available from European sources. During the late 1700's Europeans, such as the Russians and the Spanish, began exploration and trade voyages to the Pacific Northwest, trading and interacting with groups in Alaska and on the west coast of Vancouver Island. The explorers traded European goods to local groups in exchange for local furs. Beaver furs were in high demand in foreign markets and the explorers and early traders began importing more and more European goods for trade with local groups. E*uring these years of exploration, the Musqueam were not geographically positioned to take full advantage of these new resources as they lived on the mainland, with Vancouver Island itself between the Musqueam and the physical center of trade. However, this situation changed as contact intensified with the establishment of permanent fur trade forts, particularly when Fort Langley was built begirining in 1827. There is no published information from a Musqueam point of view on Musqueam goals and intentions in these interactions or how they chose to use European items. This thesis cannot speak from a Musqueam point of view, but it will examine the archaeological evidence from the Musqueam East site in order to provide an interpretation 2 less value laden than the historical sources. This thesis will examine how Musqueam people exercised agency as they decided if, when, and how to interact with Europeans, and if, when, and how to utilize European material culture. Today, the University of British Columbia lies several kilometers from the Musqueam Indian Reserve #2, (Figure 1). Located on the reserve among several archaeological sites is Musqueam East, or DhRt 2, the archaeological site of a Musqueam village called Stselax. Charles Borden, the original excavator of the site, dated the pre-contact component of this village to A.D. 1250-1807, and the post contact component from 1808 onwards. According to local Musqueam residents interviewed in the 1950s, Stselax was a village of 11 or so longhouses (Abbott 1955:2; Kelly 1952:3). In more recent times (1940s), two of the longhouses that remained standing were used for winter ceremonial activities. This means that all phases of contact, encompassing indirect contact, direct contact, the fur trade, and colonization, are present at this site and have had some impact on the material culture of this community. This makes the archaeological collection from Musqueam East ideal for examining material culture changes during the post-contact period. Musqueam East was excavated on and off by Charles Borden throughout the 1950s and early 1960s. During the first five seasons of excavation, beginning in 1950, he opened up three trenches. These excavations found mainly heavily disturbed midden, a result of the plowing and cultivation of the land by Chinese tenant farmers who rented land from Musqueam (Gillies 1956:2; Little 1957:8). Materials from these excavations are not included in this analysis due to the disturbed nature of the deposits. However, there was a pocket of land protected from the effects of agriculture on archaeological materials. This was the land underneath the two longhouses that remained standing from the original village. I Figure 1. Aerial view of Musqueam IR2, showing the Charles House excavation site. This map is reproduced directly from a report written by one of the student excavators (Gilliesl957) and is based on an historical aerial photograph of Vancouver taken in 1948. 4 In 1956, Borden began excavations within one of these, the Charles House. The excavators report that in preceding decades the Charles House was used mainly for winter ceremonies, but in its last years it was a storage area for unwanted farming equipment and other cast offs (Little 1957:11). Community members say the Charles house was rebuilt or renovated by Mr. Frank Charles around 1900 (Leeson 1957:19). Leeson (1957:19) recorded the house being reduced from its original size of approximately 65x40 feet to 52x35 feet. This is supported by Borden's observations of the construction methods of the house which included both hand and machine milled lumber. Little (1957:10) also recorded that the original sleeping platforms were narrowed into seating platforms as the house began to be used more for ceremonials. The area of the site within the Charles House proved to have much less disturbance in its stratigraphy. This thesis is based solely on materials from the Charles House excavations. This thesis examines the glass, metal, ceramic and other artifacts of European origin excavated from the Charles House. Production dates of the artifacts, and their periods of availability are used to establish a relative chronology. The vertical distribution of artifacts is analyzed to determine which artifacts entered the site during each period of contact. I then compare these items to the types of trade goods known to be available in each period. This provides a way to examine the choices Musqueam people made in the integration of European goods into Musqueam culture. The differences between what was available, and what was actually used are interpreted as evidence of agency and decision making in Musqueam interactions with Europeans, and may shed light on Musqueam goals and strategies for each contact period. Introduction to Contact Studies Processes of culture change are a primary focus of anthropological archaeology. It has 5 been argued elsewhere that situations of culture contact provide a unique insight into these processes due to relatively rapid changes partly resulting from the introduction of new material goods (Rogers and Wilson 1993; Lightfoot 1995; Silliman 2001). These rapid transformations are recognized as being influenced by the new opportunities and consequences resulting from contact. Researchers (for example see Rogers and Wilson 1993; Lightfoot 1995; Moreau 1998; Jackson 1991a, Jackson 1991b) recognize that acculturation theory fails to account for the diversity of native responses to the availability of trade goods and the diversity of contact episodes which affected the processes of contact. They also acknowledge that \"Desirability of different classes of European goods within native cultures was highly variable and culturally determined\" (Rogers and Wilson 1993:5). This recognition calls for an approach that does not create an artificial line between the pre-contact and post-contact history of First Nations cultures, but instead recognizes post-contact change as a continuation of the processes of change and innovation operating in pre-contact times (Lightfoot 1995:200). Many researchers recognize the value of combining archaeological and ethnohistoric research, as archaeology with its focus on change provides the written accounts with a diachronic perspective (Lightfoot 1995:199; Jackson 199 la: 132). While some researchers are wary of the pitfalls of combining disciplines with different goals and methodologies (Wilson 1993:21), I believe a multi-disciplinary approach to studying culture change in contact situations is the most comprehensive methodological approach to this problem. Concepts of Agency Exploring issues of agency in the past continues to be an important concern of archaeology. Examining agency has the potential to give an active voice to groups traditionally given a passive role in cultural interaction and change. The need to tie archaeological data and interpretations into wider social processes is clearly a key goal of archaeology, and factors into more than one theory of agency. Barrett (2000:65) made a key distinction between structural conditions and structuring principles. Structural conditions include material resources, technology, and symbolic systems. These conditions themselves are tied to human agency and are historically specific. An example of structural conditions operating on Musqueam would include cultural constraints on interactions with strangers, and the types of goods available for trade during given time periods. Structuring principles are the \"means of inhabiting certain structural conditions: they are expressed in the agents' abilities to work on those conditions in the reproduction and transformation of their own identities and conditions of existence\" (emphasis added, Barrett 2000:65). In other words, the forms agency takes in utilizing the structural conditions are the structuring principles. An example of structuring principles would be Musqueam using European goods such as blankets only in contexts consistent with Musqueam practices and beliefs such as potlatching or refusing to use European items for particular activities that are fundamental to Musqueam culture such as fishing. Barrett (2000:67) called for archaeology to see material culture as the context where agency was constructed, and to see how these materials may have been understood through 'biographically constructed knowledges' that would differ according to the experiences of different social classes, genders, and other groups. For example, different genders or age groups of Musqueam people may have come to know or use these structural conditions (contact era trade items) differently based on how their experiences influenced their interpretation of the items and their access to the items. Or, during periods of different types of contact, the structural conditions (types of goods, relationships) could be different, resulting in different kinds of 7 agency (resistance, transformation, context dependant use of goods). One major advantage to this theory is that it allows more than one perspective on material culture; objects can have more than one meaning depending on what experiences and interpretations the observer or actor is drawing upon. I will demonstrate that the material culture at Musqueam East exhibits patterns that correspond with this practice of different structuring principles, such as modifying European items, using items in a way consistent with Musqueam beliefs, and other means of agency. It is this point that ties the archaeological data to the historical data, and makes this theory so important in light of examining the European material culture from Musqueam East. This theory views European items as new structural conditions that would be appropriated and interpreted based on Musqueam structuring principles drawn from Musqueam experiences and knowledge. A complementary theory of agency is expressed by Silliman (2001:192). He called for an examination of the alternatives and limitations of action for any individual in a social setting. He emphasized that individuals act within historical and social contexts only partly of their own making. These contexts limit action and are an important consideration when looking at agency within the constricted alternatives available to a people decimated by disease and dominated economically by a foreign culture. Silliman (2001:194) termed this \"practical politics.\" Silliman found that male Native Americans working on Ranchos continued to use lithic tools in domestic settings even though they used metal tools in their work and had access to metal tools for domestic use. Silliman noted that metal tools are technologically superior, and because they were available the decision to continue using lithic tools at home was a political decision. In this manner, stone tools are \"active materializations, not passive vestiges, of native identity\" (Silliman 2001:203). 8 This conception of agency is useful because it gets past utilitarian function to look at the social and political implications of the objects of daily life. Because the post-contact assemblage at Stselax Village is composed of European household and trade items, it is important to have a framework within which to conceptualize the use of these items in contexts outside of their utilitarian European functions. Like Barrett, Silliman sees agency as operating within a set of structural conditions, and it is his recognition of this that gives his perspective its emancipatory potential. These approaches provide a framework for examining Musqueam agency at the Musqueam East site. This thesis will examine the social and political implications of the European goods Musqueam people chose to use, the biographical knowledge people drew upon, and the forms Musqueam agency took during different periods of the post-contact era. Methodology As a first step in identifying when different materials were integrated into Musqueam society by the Musqueam people who brought them into this site, the vertical patterning of artifacts within the site was examined. This requires strongly controlled records of provenience in order to determine which items entered the site earliest and which were introduced later. While many artifacts in the sample have inexact depth measurements, by dating some artifacts through their manufacturing technology, style of decoration and researching their availability in this area it has been possible to determine the earliest period that many could have entered the site. This information combined with the exact provenience of particular artifacts has provided some information on the date ranges for different levels of the site. In addition, I assigned each artifact to a level based on the original excavator's method of excavating in six inch levels and bagging all the artifacts from that level together. This resulted in seven levels with contact goods. 9 There are some lapses in this practice in the excavation, with many artifacts being recorded as coming from a depth with a range up to 15 inches. Levels la and 3a represent these overlapping levels. In addition, although some artifacts were catalogued and assigned a permanent artifact number by Borden, most have only a temporary ID number assigned by the researcher for this particular study. In this paper, artifacts with a permanent catalogue number are preceded by MuE, artifacts with a temporary ID have a number only. Archaeological Results Eighteen hundred and fifty one artifacts were analyzed. Nails represent 1301 artifacts, and this is after excluding hundreds of small, unidentifiable iron fragments from the sample. These unidentifiable fragments are all from Levels 1 and la. They most likely represent nails, but are excluded from further analysis due to their lack of identifiable features and sheer number. The analysis of artifacts is descriptive rather than statistical, so their exclusion does not impact the results. The other 550 artifacts include 263 glass artifacts, 171 ceramic fragments, 93 metal artifacts, and 23 miscellaneous items including shoe fragments and shell and plastic buttons. Only 43 of these 1851 artifacts have exact provenience, and only a fraction of these are diagnostic enough to provide some limits on the time period in which they could have been produced. Artifacts were examined by raw material type. I recorded their form, intended use, modifications and modified use (where known). Patterns, decoration types and styles were identified for ceramics, and production periods were generated based on that information. Glass artifacts were examined for manufacturing scars and decoration types to generate periods of production. Metal artifacts were identified to type of metal, but forms are less temporally 10 specific than other artifacts. Nails were recorded as machine cut, hand forged, or wire and then assigned production periods. Miscellaneous artifacts were treated individually and any attributes such as raw material or form that could contribute to determining a production date were recorded. The following sections discuss the artifacts based on raw material. Tables are provided to show the vertical distribution and diversity of each material class among the assigned levels. Glass Glass is present in surprisingly early levels of this site, considering it is never mentioned as a trade item (Table 1). In fact the earliest post-contact level at the site, Level 5, contains an unidentified fragment of colorless glass, and a club sauce style stopper (artifact #182, Figures 2 and 3). The manufacture of this style of stopper has a broad production range throughout the 18th and 19th centuries (Jones: 152-3, 1979). Level 4 (18-24\") contains two fragments of green bottle glass and one piece of a colorless plate. There is a hiatus in the presence of glass from 12-18\" (Level 3). This hiatus is followed by a steady increase in the number of glass artifacts in the three most recent levels. Level 2 (6-12\") has 20 fragments, including six bottle fragments, four container fragments (could also be bottles but unable to confirm), and three fragments of flat glass. The remaining seven fragments are unidentified. Level la (0-12\") has five container fragments, one bottle fragment, two buttons, and 14 fragments of flat glass. Level 1 (0-6\") again shows the most diversity, with two glass beads, six glass buttons, one marble, one stopper, two fragments from tableware, one candlestick fragment, 43 fragments from containers, 82 fragments of flat glass, and 41 unidentified fragments (See Table 2 for diagnostic glass date ranges). 11 Table 1. Glass Artifacts by Level Level Artifact/Fragment Type Total 1 (0-6\")DBS 2 bead, 7 bottle, 6 button, 1 candlestick, 43 container, 1 marble, 1 stopper, 2 tableware, 82 window/mirror, 41 unidentified 186 la(0-15\")DBS 1 bottle, 2 button, 5 container, 14 window/mirror, 30 unidentified 52 2 (6-12\")DBS 6 bottle, 4 container, 3 window/mirror, 7 unidentified 20 3 (12-18\")DBS no glass artifacts 0 4(18-24\")DBS 2 bottle, 1 plate 3 5 (24-36\")DBS 1 stopper, 1 unidentified 2 Note: DBS indicates depth below surface Table 2. Diagnostic Glass Artifacts by Dates of Production and Level Artifact Number Item Level Production Range 114 Pharmaceutical bottle 1 (0-6\") 1850- present 150 Carnival glass tableware 1 (0-6\") 1870's into 1900's 156 Carnival glass tableware 1 (0-6\") 1870's into 1900's 182 Club sauce type stopper 5 (24-36\") 18th and 19th century Note: Dates from Jones (1985) Modification Several of the artifacts were modified. Level la contains eight modified fragments of glass. Six of these fragments were altered by heat and appear melted and misshapen. Two of the fragments display patterned chipping. In Level 1, there are 25 modified fragments, seven chipped, 16 altered by heat, and two heat altered then chipped (#121 and #85). Households had fires inside their homes and it is possible these items found their way into the fire accidentally. However, the two artifacts that display both alteration by heat and subsequent chipping (Artifact #121, Figure 4) suggest that some experimentation with heating glass occurred. The chipping occurs on the edges of the glass fragments and is repeated and patterned in a way consistent with chipping of stone, a technology occasionally in use in the non-contact sample from the same 12 levels. According to David Pokotylo, a lithic expert, the chances of the flaking on these two artifacts being produced naturally is remote (personal communication). It is interesting that all 33 modified pieces of glass occur in Levels 1 and la, the most recent levels of the site. This contrasts with other studies that have found experimentation and modification typical of the earliest introduced trade items, such as at Bella Coola sites (Hobler 1986). At Stselax, there is an increase in the presence of glass at the site through time, no doubt linked to its increased availability after 1858. That was the year when the gold rush brought thousands of immigrants into British Columbia and colonial settlement began, bringing more stores and supply sources than the Hudson's Bay Company trading posts, which had been the sole provider up to that point. This is supported by the HBC Fort Langley journals which do not record glass being traded at all prior to 1858. In the 18th and 19th centuries food and drink were packed in glass and it is clear from the fort journals that these subsistence items were in short supply. This would explain the early club sauce stopper being among the first glass artifacts introduced into the site, and would also explain the scarcity of glass in the earliest two levels. In contrast, by Level la there is a significant increase in the amount of glass, and flat glass first appears in this level. The flat glass may be from mirrors or windows, as there are no distinguishing characteristics once the reflective surface layer is deteriorated. In Level 1, the amount of glass more than triples and the diversity expands to include window/mirror and decorative glass among other types, demonstrating wider use of a variety of glass items not restricted to food and beverage containers. It seems likely that the greater availability of glass in general in later contact times made glass more accessible to Musqueam individuals for experimentation. An anomaly is the presence of faceted and globular blue trade beads in Level 1, a level 13 which from all other evidence appears to be post 1858. The glass beads are recorded in the Fort Langley journals as being distributed as a gift, although it is clear from the journals they were not a highly desired status item as they were on the northern coast (Cook 1967). Why the beads are not represented in the earlier levels but are present later is unclear. Processes of curation need to be considered, as well as activities carried out at this area of the site, and even the movement of people, as individuals from other groups that had a more intense and long lasting interest in the beads may have introduced them to Stselax at this time. Ceramics The earliest ceramic represented in the sample is a fragment from a long stemmed white pipe occurring in Level 4 (Table 3), (Figure 5). It is interesting to note that this pipe is of a later style, popular during the gold rush years (post 1858), while the earlier trade pipes found at Stselax, but not in this excavation, were shorter and had a dark brown glaze (Foster 1967:19-20). In general, ceramic pipes are small, light, and more easily transported than china cups or plates. Pipes serve a social function in the sense that people smoke together and tobacco was an item not so often traded as dispensed as gifts to First Nations populations from fur traders to maintain good relations or as a reward for assistance. This is consistent with findings at other First Nations sites where European ceramics are found; the earliest introduced ceramics are those that facilitate and structure social interactions, both those already existing in the aboriginal culture, and those arising from contact (Burley 1989:102-103). An example of this is Jackson's (1991:134-135) interpretation of teacups and saucers being used almost to the exclusion of other types of ceramics as a result of Alaskan cultures integrating the tea ceremony into pre-existing social practices. Similarly, Maas (1994:51) interprets European wash bowls at the Heiltsuk site of Old Bella Bella as communal serving dishes. 14 Table 3. Ceramic Artifacts by Level Level Artifact/Fragment Type Total 1 (0-6\")DBS 1 china doll, 9 container, 2 cup, 1 cup handle, 8 cup or bowl, 1 dish, 1 hat pin, 1 knob, 4 plate, 59 tableware, 1 vase/candlestick, 39 unidentified 128 la(0-15\")DBS 2 cup, 1 cup or creamer, 2 plate, 7 tableware, 8 unidentified 20 2 (6-12\")DBS 1 clay pipe, 4 container, 7 tableware, 2 unidentified 14 3 (12-18\")DBS 1 vase/candlestick 1 3a(12-24\")DBS 1 vase/ candlestick 1 4(18-24\")DBS 1 clay pipe, 2 plate, 1 tableware 4 5 (24-36\")DBS No ceramic artifacts 0 \u2014 2 knob, 1 marble 3 - indicates no available data Although tea cups, bowls, and pipes were used in different consumption activities, the social aspects of these activities are similar in that they provide an arena for existing social interactions, and allow new interactions resulting from contact to be structured in a manner comprehensible to both parties. An unidentified tableware fragment and two plate fragments also occur in Level 4. The plate fragments are believed intrusive as the excavators recorded them being found in the fill of a stake hole. Unfortunately, the non-intrusive fragment of tableware is too small to identify the vessel type, however it is clearly tableware and not a utilitarian vessel. In Level 3a (18-36\") a fragment of a candlestick or vase is the only ceramic artifact found. In Level 2 there is a significant increase in the number of ceramics present (14), and also a change in the type of ceramics found. Level 2 has a fragment of a mission pipe, seven fragments of unidentified tableware, and a dish fragment. These items are consistent with those in the previous two levels, although their quantity increases. Level 2 also sees the introduction of utilitarian containers represented by four fragments (Figure 6). The literature overwhelmingly focuses on the integration of tableware with little mention of aboriginal cultures using utilitarian 15 vessels or trading for them, and sources suggest that local men were more interested in trading for blankets than for household goods such as ceramics (McDonald n.d.:59). It is possible that rather than these items entering Stselax through trade, aboriginal wives of traders shared their access to particular goods with their relatives in aboriginal households. Level la contains an increased quantity of ceramics (20), with seven fragments of unidentified tableware, two plate fragments, one fragment from a cup or creamer, and two cup fragments. In Level la, more fragments are large enough to be identified as to the vessel form. Plates and cups are equally represented, though only by two fragments each. However, this does suggest that the preference for ceramic forms associated with tea noted by Jackson in Alaska was not in operation for the Musqueam. As the most recent layer, the relatively high number (89) of ceramics in Level 1 (0-6\") is not surprising. There are nine fragments from utilitarian containers, eight cup or bowl fragments, four cup fragments, four plate fragments, one vase or candlestick, one furniture knob, one hat pin head, and one china doll arm fragment. Of the identifiable tableware, the cups and cups/bowls outnumber the plates three to one. While this is suggestive of a preference for cups, the ambiguity of the sample, with 59 unidentified fragments, precludes any definitive statements about a preference for specific tableware vessel forms, although it is clear that tableware was the preferred ceramic artifact by the later contact period. The increase in diversity is marked, and suggests a much wider access to ceramic goods. I would argue that this level of the ceramic assemblage encompasses the time period after 1858. Figure 4. Artifact #12, glass fragment showing chipped edge Figure 5. Pipe fragments popular in the mid-nineteenth century. Counter clockwise from top left: a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h. All examples are from Musqueam East, but only b and h were used in this analysis Figure 6. Non-temporally specific utilitarian container fragments. Figure 7. Nineteenth and twentieth century ceramic decoration techniques in Levels 1, la, and 2: Top row, left to right: (a)flow blue, (b)copper band, (c)sponge cut stamp; center row, left to right: (d), (e), (f), all Celadon; bottom row, left to right: (g) crimped edging; (h) hand painted; (i) decal. Figure 8. Willow pattern fragment Figure 9. Modified metal artifacts: (a) MuE 3137 iron rod bent into bracelet; (b) MuE3245 copper rolled into tube shape; (c) MuE529 copper rolled into tinkler/bead; (d) MuE1711 lead formed into bow shape with two holes in center, weight?; (e) MuE3008, cut piece of lead bar. 20 21 Ceramic Decoration Level 3a (12-24\") is the earliest level to have ceramics with an identifiable decoration method. The single identified ceramic from this level has an undated hand painted design in blue with gilt highlights. Decorated ceramics continue through all succeeding levels. Decoration methods represented in the most recent levels include flow blue (Figure 7a), transfer printing (including a late variant of Spode and Copeland's 'Willow' shown in Figure 8), decal (Figure 7i), multi banding and sponge cut (Figure 7c). Flow blue in particular became popular in Canada by the 1840s (Collard 1984:118). Transfer printed wares were imported by the Hudson's Bay Company in the greatest numbers from 1835 to the 1870s. Transfer printed wares continued to be imported through the 1880s and 1890s, but in reduced amounts (Sussman 1979:9). Sponge stamped wares entered the Canadian market around 1850 (Collard 1984:145). It is during the 1880s and 1890s, when the popularity of transfer wares declined, that the diversity in ceramic artifacts supplied to the Fraser Valley increased, co- occurring with the arrival of families of settlers and shops to provision them. Level la (0-12\") contains six examples of transfer print wares, including one fragment of the willow pattern, and one fragment combining transfer print with crimped edges. In addition to the transfer printed wares, Level la also contained one multi-banded example with indentations, one example of crimped edges with no other decoration (Figure 7g), and one example with a copper (metallic) band (Figure 7b). This last example may be associated with the popular tea leaf design which featured several different motifs printed in copper with copper bands rimming some pieces. This cannot be positively confirmed as the fragment has only a band, without a motif this pattern is not temporally sensitive. 22 Level 1 again has the highest number of identified decoration methods. This includes one example of molded relief with a pooling brown glaze, one example of cut sponge stamping (Figure 7c), five fragments of a single Celadon vessel (Figure 7d, e, f), nine hand painted examples (Figure 9h), two fragments from a single vessel sporting a decal Greek key border, one example of multi-banding, and one example with a single gilt band. There are also 12 examples of transfer printing including four flow blue, four brown, and eight willow pattern- several of which are part of the same vessel. The clear increase in diversity of decoration methods corresponds with the significant increase in diversity of vessel forms in Level 1, and the historically documented increase in availability of a wider range of ceramic goods. The presence of the late version willow pattern is also consistent with the late nineteenth century assignment of this level. The changes through time in ceramic vessel forms and decoration present at Musqueam East are consistent with general trends of supply and availability of ceramics at HBC posts and post-185 8 supply shops. The HBC posts were the only place for ceramic goods to be obtained by Musqueam people before 1858, although that supply may not have been directly from fort trading activities, but indirectly through aboriginal trade networks. However, while Spode and Copeland was the exclusive supplier of tablewares to the HBC (Sussman 1979:9), other wares including Chinese exports and utilitarian wares were clearly available as well, as their presence at this site shows. The availability of ceramics at Ft. Langley and other HBC posts is one of the constraints that operated on Musqueam people's decision to integrate ceramics into Musqueam society. 23 Metal-excluding nails The metal artifact sample displays the widest diversity in artifact form and category of use (Table 4). However, when nails are excluded from the sample, the number of artifacts is less than both the glass and ceramic sample. There are 93 metal artifacts excluding nails, unidentified fragments, and artifacts without provenience. While the majority of the metal artifacts are rusted or corroded to some extent, they more often tend to be represented by complete or almost complete objects than the glass or ceramic artifacts. Those metal items available to First Nations from the earliest episodes of contact are absent from the earliest post-contact levels of the site (Levels 4 and 5), but occur in the more recent levels. Examples include lead bar fragments, a copper tinkler likely made from a copper kettle or other thin walled vessel, a spoon, files, buttons, and an iron bar and rod (Figure 9). A shotgun shell is one of the earliest metal artifacts in the sample (Level 3a) (Figure 10), although shotguns came later than muskets with lead shot (Level 1 contained one lead shot). Table 4. Metal Artifacts by Level Level Item Total 1 1 bolt, 2 bottle caps, 1 buckle, 4 button, 1 container, 1 eye screw, 1 eye bolt and padlock, 2 fasteners, 4 files, 1 hanger, 1 iron bar, 1 iron rod, 1 iron spike, 2 latches, 2 lead bars, 1 lead nail, 1 lead shot, 1 penny, 1 ring, 1 rivet, 1 rotary saw blade, 1 safety pin, 1 saucer, 3 screws, 1 screw hook, 1 shotgun shell, 8 lead sinkers, 7 iron spikes, 1 spoon, 1 staple fastener, 1 washer, 2 wire fragments, 1 copper tinkler 58 la 1 bottlecap, 1 clip, 2 buttons, 1 container, 1 eye screw, 1 fastener, 1 latch, 1 screw, 4 shotgun shells, 3 lead sinkers, 1 washer 17 2 1 harness strap, 1 horse shoe, 1 iron rod, 2 shotgun shells, 1 iron spike 6 3a 1 shotgun shell, 1 lead object 2 - 5 buttons, 1 fragment of electrical wire, 1 lead sinker, 1 washer, 1 washer/ring, 1 wire fragment 10 These shotgun cartridges are all brass except for one which likely had a paper component. The all brass casings once had maker's marks but corrosion has left these marks illegible. Previous research 24 on similar brass cartridges from the other excavations at this site have produced a date range of production extending from 1877 through the 1950s (Foster 1967:21). This is in line with the dates for mass market production of brass cartridges beginning in the 1850s (IMACS 1996:1). The other early items include a lead object (Level 3a), and an iron rod bent into a circle (Level 2). Overall, the lack of small metal trade items in the earliest levels argues against much interaction between Musqueam people at Stselax and the early traders. In fact, the lack of modified metal in the earliest levels to contain European goods flies in the face of acculturation models that emphasize technological superiority as the primary motivation for adopting new materials and artifact forms. If the Musqueam at this site valued the technological advantages of larger amounts of copper or iron that the arrival of explorers and later traders provided, a presence of these metals would be expected earlier at the site. Instead, there are few metal artifacts until Level la (0-12\"), and no significant number of modified metal artifacts until Level 1 (one example in each of Levels 3a and la and two examples Level 2). Table 5. Modified Metal Artifacts by Level Artifact No. Original Item Modified Use Description Level 944/MuE 1711 lead bar weight? lead formed into bow shape with two holes in center 3a 941/MuE 3137 iron rod bracelet? Iron rod bent into circle 2 23 unidentified unknown triangular fragment of unidentified metal 2 25 lead nail unknown lead nail, possibly modified 1 280 unidentified unknown appears altered 1 289 container unknown rim of metal container, twisted and folded 1 292 unidentified unknown appears altered 1 313 unidentified unknown possible modification of thin metal fragment 1 458 iron nail tiarpoon blade blank? round shank, flattened at one end 1 49 container unknown fragment of metal rim of pail la 68 iron file unknown tang end of file 1 694 iron nail harpoon blade blank? flattened wire nail fragment 1 943/MuE 3245 copper sheet tinkler/ bead tubular bead, rolled copper 1 940/MuE 3008 lead bar unknown cut piece of lead bar i 25 An explanation for this may be revealed when looking at the activities the metal artifacts would have been used for in each level. Level 3a has the shotgun shell which would have most likely been used for hunting. Level 2 contains metal artifacts used for hunting, as well as agriculture and industrial applications, and one possible bracelet. In Level la hunting activity continues to be represented and lead fishing sinkers begin to occur (Figure 11). Household and industrial items are also present. By Level 1, the number of lead fishing sinkers has increased, the objects used in hunting have decreased, household items continue to be represented, industrial items increase significantly, and personal objects and woodworking tools first occur. Other than the possible bracelet in Level 3a, there are no personal items of adornment until Level 1. Items of personal adornment such as the copper tinkler and metal buttons that are expected to have been added to ceremonial garments are only present in the most recent level. This appears to indicate that some European items were not integrated into Musqueam ceremonial spheres until late in the contact process, or were not kept in households during earlier times. Similarly, the fishing sinkers were only introduced in significant numbers in Levels 1 and la (there is a single modified lead object from Level 3a, MuE1711 that was likely used as a sinker), and metal/woodworking files not until Level 1. While ethnographies record hunting as important to the Coast Salish economic system, it is clear that its importance was outweighed by three other activities represented at this site: ceremonial, fishing, and woodworking. It is therefore extremely important to recognize that it is these activities, so fundamental to Musqueam life, that show the most recent evidence of European impact. In contrast, hunting, industrial/construction (nails), and general household activities are the earliest activities to show an integration of metal European items into the material culture associated with them, although it should be noted that the introduction of 26 shotguns are still from a relatively late period in the contact process (post 1850). It will be shown later in this paper that the European metal items that were available during the earliest post-contact periods are not the items introduced in the earliest post-contact levels of this excavation at Musqueam East. The restriction of agricultural equipment present solely in Level 2 coupled with 1916 census data documenting a small farm at Musqueam also argues for earlier adoption (and in this case, soon after abandonment) of artifacts associated with activities less essential to the inhabitants of this Musqueam village than the three mentioned above (Weightman 1972:93). Nails Nails are the single largest artifact class represented at this site. While there is a single machine made fragment recorded for each of Levels 6 and 7, excavators believed these two artifacts were intrusive. Based on the entire sample of artifacts and relative dating, I agree that no machine made nails could have entered the site that early in a valid context. Levels 3 and 4 each have a handful of nails and fragments, only a couple of which were in good enough condition to identify as machine cut. Nails are represented in significant numbers by Level 2, which contains 198 nails and nail fragments, only three of which are wire nails. The number of nails in general, and wire nails in particular, increase with each level thereafter. This is the expected pattern in general, and corresponds to wider patterns of nail manufacturing techniques as they progressed from machine cut to wire nail production (Adams 2002). Wire nails were not shipped and traded in large quantities until after approximately 1883 (Adams 2002:70). This is consistent with Level 2 and later levels being assigned a post-1858 date. In addition, Adams has found that British supplied sites such as HBC forts were actually reliant on hand wrought nails later in time than their American counterparts. This means wrought nails were common on HBC post buildings etc. through the late 1800s. While it is possible some of the nail fragments too 27 corroded to identify were hand wrought, there is not a single confirmed hand wrought nail recovered from this site. This means that the machine cut nails in Levels 3 and 4 may be an intrusion resulting from rebuilding episodes. Nails from these levels, which date to the Fort Langley trade years, would be expected to be hand wrought square nails. Wire nails are represented by three nail fragments in Level 3. These nails are believed to be have entered the site as a result of rebuilding episodes recorded by the original excavators and seen in the mixed construction methods of the house. Miscellaneous Artifacts The 23 miscellaneous artifacts include one fragment of a dancer's woven costume, one fragment of electrical wire, two fragments of twine, one piece of cellophane tape, one fragment from a newspaper comic strip, seven shoe fragments, two plastic buttons, and 5 shell buttons. All miscellaneous items excepting the buttons are either too fragmentary to date, or are not chronologically sensitive. One plastic button is present in each of Levels 1 and 2. These buttons do not appear to be bakelite as they do not bear the molded name characteristic of bakelite items. This places them post-1930, when alternative plastics expanded onto the market (IMACS 2001:2,4). The seven shell buttons all appear to be mother of pearl and have smooth backs which date them to post 1900 (IMACS 2001:4-5). These dates are consistent with the colonial designation of Levels 1 and 2. Ethnohistoric Data on Contact History This discussion is divided into three sections, each representing a period when particular kinds of relationships were established between Europeans and coastal First Nations, and particular classes of material goods became available for integration by aboriginal groups who chose to do so: Years of Exploration 1774-1826, the Fur Trade Years 1827-1857, and European 28 Colonization and Settlement 1858 onwards. While many of the sources used refer generally to the Northwest Coast, information specific to Musqueam is given priority wherever possible. Years of Exploration (1774-1826) Contact in the southern region of the Northwest Coast began when Juan Perez, sailing the Santiago in 1774 and 1775, traded abalone shells and silver tablespoons for furs with natives at Nootka Sound (Pethic 1980:11; Vancouver 1984:13; Cook 1967:322). In 1778, James Cook captained the first British vessel to reach the same area. In the years following, a multitude of British and American vessels anchored at Nootka Sound and bartered European goods for sea otter and other furs. Although the majority of published information focuses on Nootka Sound and northward, the Santa Saturnina of Spain entered the Gulf of Georgia and recorded First Nations' settlements at Point Grey, Point Atkinson and Burrard Inlet in 1791 (Pethic 1980:48). Simon Fraser recorded landing at Musqueam in 1808, and being run off by the residents after only an hour (Fraser 1960:106). Musqueam oral traditions record him being in this area, but contradict Fraser's claim that he landed at the village, a disagreement examined later in this paper. For all of these explorers and early traders the directive was the same: establish friendly ties with any aboriginal groups encountered in order to promote trade and commerce (Cook 1967:4; Pethic 1980:79,194). However, it quickly became clear that First Nations' groups had their own goals for contact, and their own strategies for achieving these goals. Early Trade in Musqueam Territory One of the major constraints on Musqueam use of European trade goods was availability. This was due to several factors, only some of which were under Native control. The most obvious of these factors is the presence of traders and their nationality. The early Spanish traders were distinguished by having silver and abalone. As part of his strategy for establishing 29 connections with First Nations on the coast, Cook distributed a wider variety of goods along Nootka Sound and up along the coast to Alaska (Cook 1967:4). These included iron, knives, chisels, tin, nails, buttons, beads, cloth, brass, copper kettles, candlesticks, saws, swords, hatchets, and tobacco (Cook 1967). In addition, Russians to the north were distributing beads, copper, pewter rings, and snuff (Pethic 1980:44). These were the earliest trade goods available. It is at this point that Europeans had the most control over accessibility to trade goods. This control did not last, as the First Nations had strong leverage: the Europeans intensely desired to engage them in trade for furs. The most important way in which First Nations groups controlled the availability of trade goods was by refusing to trade their furs until the items they desired were presented. This placed control over the material constraints on agency into Native hands. Cook was under orders to make friendly connections and went out of his way to accommodate local groups' demands. Because many of the native groups Cook encountered refused to trade for beads or cloth, Cook had to improvise, trading away brass hardware from dressers, candle sticks, and tin canisters-items not originally intended for trade (Cook 1967:302). These demands impacted the trade cargo brought by ensuing expeditions. James Hanna in 1785 brought iron bars rather than beads or cloth to trade for furs (Pethic 1980:13). Spain used a British ship it captured to explore the Strait of Juan de Fuca and to trade sheets of copper for furs in 1788, and in 1790 the British ship the Argonaut was doing the same, in addition to trading muskets, saws, and files (Pethic 1980:26, 48). This outlines specific goals on the part of local groups interacting with the traders. These goals manifested as desire for particular classes of goods, and the strategy for obtaining them was a refusal to engage in trade until satisfied. This aboriginal practice resulted in Europeans I 30 modifying their own strategy of trading trinkets in order to accommodate Native demands for metal and other goods. In addition to altering their cargo, British captains had their on-board forges modify goods in an attempt to capture a larger share of trade (Pethic 1980:118,72). Native desire for goods changed dramatically from year to year with people often wanting what they refused to accept the year before (Pethic 1980:118-19). The changing availability of trade goods to all First Nations groups shows how fluid this material constraint on agency could be. This is an important aspect of Native control over accessibility to specific classes of goods, and it makes it impossible to generalize the items traded in one particular area to all groups trading on the coast. Each group may initially have had access to the same goods, but each group could have exerted pressure on traders for the specific items they desired. There is no record of direct trade between Musqueam people and the early trade vessels, although it seems likely that the same kinds of goods traded elsewhere on the coast may have been accessible to Musqueam people. In 1792, Vancouver voyaged up Burrard Inlet and describes the natives, likely Musqueam, as friendly and possessing no European goods beyond some ornaments made from sheet copper (Pethic 1980:106). The lack of trade goods and their behaviour made Vancouver think that his party were the first Europeans this group had seen. The presence of sheet copper ornaments illustrates agency in the transformation of raw European materials, and demonstrates that aboriginal trade routes are an important factor to consider in the accessibility of trade goods. Local Nations had little control over whether a European explorer or trader stopped in their area. This was mediated by the presence of aboriginal trade routes that people in contact with Europeans shared with groups without direct contact (Suttles 1998:165). This means First 31 Nations without direct access to European trade could have access to goods through their neighbours, or their neighbours' neighbours, as Cook observed in Alaska (Cook 1967:321). In addition, some groups had very early access to Russian iron through trade routes that crossed the Bering Strait (Cook 1967:346). However, one source recorded that in the Georgia Strait and up the Fraser River, not all peoples were on friendly terms (Fraser 1960:105). Even sporadic hostility between groups could have impeded the distribution of European goods along aboriginal trade routes. This consideration is especially relevant in light of traders' observations that one Musqueam group had little to no trade goods at a time when they were being widely distributed. Vancouver's remarks about the lack of trade goods present in Burrard Inlet suggest Musqueam either did not have access to the aboriginal trade networks that would have distributed these goods, which is unlikely, or were unable or chose not to utilize them. In 1808, Fraser (1960:104,105) recorded that groups from the Fraser River canyon and valley were afraid to accompany him down river as they were at war with the people at the sea. The hostile reception to Fraser's party near Musqueam seems to support this, but Leona Sparrow relates that Musqueam oral tradition records Fraser stealing a canoe from another group upriver and that this accounts for his hostile reception (personal communication). Considering the pressures Fraser faced from his superiors to successfully map a non-land based supply route, Fraser's claim to have landed at Musqueam could have been fabricated to strengthen exclusive trading claims to the area and the route. As Suttles discusses in regards to the Fort Langley journals, accounts of early Europeans in the area, such as Fraser, do have ethnographic value but need to be considered in their entire context which includes the focus of the observations, and the biases and vested interests of the author (Suttles 1998:163). If there were hostilities, they may have limited Musqueam access to the goods Fraser distributed along his descent down the Fraser river, including calico, tobacco, clothes, tonic, and awls in addition to the regular gamut of trade goods available from the ships. However, considering the interests and purpose of Fraser's expedition, it is equally likely that Musqueam oral tradition is the correct version of events, which would indicate that Musqueam people may have chosen not to engage in trade with foreigners for their own reasons. This would mean that intergroup war was not a factor, but instead that the Musqueam only desired a few European goods and accessed them through aboriginal trade routes. Cultural Constraints on Access Restricted access to goods is another important consideration. This ties into Barrett's notion of biographical knowledge (2000). Overall, traders were basically willing to trade anything to anyone in order to establish friendly relations. In contrast, native cultural constraints are very important for considering the social and political use of European items in a First Nations context. Explorers' journals indicate that not everyone enjoyed the same level of access to trade goods. Pethic's analysis of the logs of all ships in Nootka Sound from 1790-1795, contains multiple references to women controlling trade, but not actually engaging in it directly (Pethic 1980:68,118). Ingraham's attempt to copy a pattern he saw on a woman's neck (possibly a tattoo?) supports the idea that they had some power in trading relationships, but the nature of their access to the goods themselves is unclear. This is especially so since Fraser, Mackenzie, and Cook rarely discuss women and make no reference to women in a trading context. While women are scarcely addressed in Cook's journal, he does discuss other areas of differential access. When he arrived in Nootka, the first group he traded with appeared to establish some proprietary ties to Cook and wouldn't let incoming groups trade with him (Cook 33 1967:299). If the Nootka people did allow another group to trade, they acted as intermediaries and bargained for an advantage to the other group, not Cook. This is strong evidence of access to European trade goods being important in maintaining status and influence over others. Thus, cultural constraints may have as much impact on access as the material constraints themselves. The Fur Trade Years (1827-1857) In many ways the peak years of the land based fur trade in this area were a continuation of the earlier established relationships between fur traders and First Nations groups, including Musqueam. However, while the maritime traders were a seasonal presence, the Hudson's Bay Company forts were permanent establishments located in First Nations' territories. These posts and forts afforded more sustained and widespread contact between Europeans and First Nations. While the goals and strategies of the traders remained relatively unchanged from the earlier years, the relationships they established with First Nations and Musqueam groups began to change. A critical development in relations between Musqueam and Europeans during the fur trade years was the establishment of Fort Langley on the Fraser River in 1827. The establishment of Fort Langley also provides a resource for examining interactions between traders and local people through the journals the fort managers were required to keep. As Maclachlan explains, the scope of these journals is limited to topics of interest to the company, such as who visited Fort Langley and what they traded, however they also represent a significant portion of the ethnographic record of this area during these fur trade years (1998:18, also Harris 1997). Suttles points out that the welfare of the men writing these journals was tied to their relationship with local groups, which explains how detailed observations of aboriginal ways of life found their way into the company documents (1998:160). The version of the Fort Langley journals cited in this paper is a primary source held in the UBC Special Collections archive, 34 accredited to Archibald McDonald, one of the men in charge of Fort Langley. The reader is referred to the published version of the journals edited by Maclachlan (1998). Fort Langley-Social Change Fort Langley was established by the British to capture some of the trade so profitable to the American vessels which had monopolized the maritime trade. Fort Langley provided every group along the Fraser direct or indirect access to trade goods. This included Musqueam, and Musqueam people are recorded as visiting and camping near the fort to trade fish and furs for blankets, traps, and kettles (Weightman 1972:69). The trading of fish in addition to furs reflects one of the largest shifts in relations during this period: the European traders were extremely dependant on the local groups for their basic subsistence. This resulted in not only trade, but also in personal survival becoming primary goals of contact (Suttles 1998:164). Clearly, this placed some power into the hands of local First Nations, and ensured that traders attempted to maintain positive relationships. While commercial relations came relatively easy, trust between the parties was established slowly. Fort Langley also created a new focus for native activity. Many groups would camp for months at the fort (Harris 1997:77). Fort Langley provided a consistent supply of new forms of wealth to Coast Salish groups. This widely recognized to have resulted in an intensification of local institutions already important and in practice before contact, such as potlatching and art, as well as expanding inter-village ties (Weightman 1972:72; Duff 1964:53). Inter-village warfare was impacted by the availability of guns and ammunition. While it was general policy at HBC forts not to supply ammunition, there are records of ammunition available for trade at Fort Langley in 1852 and the journals record the traders' fears that American ships were supplying native groups with both guns and ammunition (Morton n.d.:24; McDonald n.d.:59). Many 35 groups, including the Musqueam, were raided by their neighbors who obtained guns before them, and retaliatory raids by Musqueam are recorded in the journals (McDonald n.d.:29). In addition to new social conditions, new goods and materials were also being introduced during these years. Fort Langley-Trade The Fort Langley Journals begin with the Clallum Expedition of 1827. This party voyaged from Fort Vancouver at the mouth of the Columbia River, to the site where they established Fort Langley. During this voyage many goods were distributed to First Nations met along the way. Items given away or traded for fur, canoes and fish during this voyage include knives, fine beads, tobacco, looking glasses, cloth, axes, and buttons. Women are specifically mentioned in a trading role, exchanging berries for rings, buttons, and other small goods (McDonald n.d.:l 1). Strategic trading on the part of First Nations is recorded in several instances. Locals recognized a need among the Europeans for cedar bark used as roofing for buildings, and began trading it. Groups are also recorded as being upset and refusing to trade when fort prices offered for the furs were lower than they could get from American vessels in the Juan de Fuca region (McDonald n.d.: 15). Table 6 is an inventory of the goods available for barter at Fort Langley in the spring of 1852. The inventory makes clear the increased range of goods specifically imported for trade to the Musqueam and other groups if they desired them and shows 930 yards of blanket making material available. 36 Table 6. Fort Langley Trade Inventory 1852 1 gross Indian awls 5 bundles white cut glass beads 2 bundles common round beads 11 narrow worsted belts 3 mid. Scarlet belts 88 plain blankets 4 Jappaned tobacco boxes 2 gross gilt ball vest buttons 12 doz. Large horn combs 2/3 dozen ivory dandriff combs 57 yards navy blue cotton 19.5 yards blue duffle 7 and 1/3 dozen 10\" flat bastard files 4 cts. Gun flints 1 and 2/3 gross gun worms 7 and V4 m kirby trout hooks 3 nests covered tin kettles 10 cts. Queen's needles 1/3 gross clay pipes 24 half pint pots 387 common cotton shirts 90 lbs beaver shot 180 lbs yellow soap 2 yards green strouds 6 1 lbs colored thread 12 pr corduroy trousers 14 yards blue baize 290 yards green baize 470 yards red baize 90 yards scarlet baize 2 green blankets (3point) 35 scotch bonnets 17 doz. W+Y metal coat buttons 22 common cloth capots 6 dozen fine combs 60 yards fine printed cotton 8 yards grey cotton 2 and 5/6 dozen 8\" flat bastard files 10 common Indian guns 160 lbs gun powder 5 cts. Large cod hooks 16 fancy lustre jugs 1 dozen scalping knives 25 oval tin pans of various sizes 21 Japaned tin pint pots 4 plain pint pots 156 lbs ball shot 120 lbs buckshot 68 yards common blue strouds 8 yards scarlet strouds 280 lbs Canada roll tobacco 7.5 lbs Chinese vermillion Note: Inventory from Morton n.d.:24. The journals emphasize that groups would not trade furs for anything but blankets on many occasions. By 1841, the trade of furs was falling off, but fisheries were established and were making up for the lost profit. Soon after this decline in furs, the discovery of gold in the Fraser heralded a new period of contact when European goals would begin intruding on the way of life of local groups in more and more ways. European Colonization and Settlement (1858-onwards) In 1858, with news of gold in the Fraser River, over 20,000 miners flocked to BC to share in the perceived wealth (Harris 1997:80). That same year, British Columbia was established and opened for settlement by European families. Missionaries came with the settlers. All of these 37 changes in the goals and strategies of European contact with aboriginal groups and in European occupation of land resulted in a drastic change in the nature of contact (Fisher 1992:96,97). Native goals and strategies for this period changed too, as they attempted to find ways to successfully navigate the new laws, religions, and economic systems that Europeans were attempting to impose. This is seen in a change in the use and context of European goods. The period of mutual dependence, relatively equal relations, and intensification of native institutions represented by the fur trade gave way to a time of disruption, intrusion, oppression, and resistance (Harris 1997; Tennant 1990; Duff 1964; Fisher 1992). While the settling of BC brought resource hungry Europeans, it also brought merchants and outfitters to supply them, which made available another new set of goods to Musqueam. In addition, with the fur trade failing and fisheries opening up, many First Nations individuals made a partial transition to the cash economy by taking positions at fisheries, canneries, saw mills and as seasonal laborers in hop fields (Newell 1989:16; Fisher 1992:101; Carlson 2001:64). Wage employment increased access to the newly available goods. Access could also have the effect of creating a need for goods as some people were partially drawn into economic systems that focused on individual expenditure for individual gain, rather than gain from sharing and giving to others (Weightman 1972:78). For example, the new goods included dishes used for personal consumption, rather than communal serving dishes previously used by the Coast Salish. Agricultural equipment was available and First Nations were encouraged to take up the practice (Duff 1964:75). A photo of the Musqueam reserve taken in 1898 by Harlan Smith shows two horses in the background (Musqueam Archives). Some Musqueam reserve land was cleared and leased out to Chinese farmers by 1916. The government thought that the presence of the farmers would encourage the Musqueam to begin cultivation (Weightman 1972: 80). At least 38 some Musqueam did make an attempt as 100 acres were recorded as being farmed, and three cows and two horses were kept at this time. The farming was short lived with no further records of Musqueam agriculture on the reserve, and job options more closely tied to traditional economic pursuits such as fishing were pursued more readily. Discussion In many ways, the patterns present in the archaeological data at Musqueam East are different from expectations. Those trade goods first available to the Musqueam people as determined using explorer's journals and trade records are not represented in the earliest levels of this site (Tables 7 and 8). While glass trade beads, tinklers made from copper kettles, and files are present in the sample, they do not appear until the uppermost 12 inches of the deposits. In addition, modified artifacts only occur in that same most recent 12 inches. Dateable artifacts such as ceramics and shotgun shells have permitted an assignment of these levels to the European colonization and settlement period. It is intriguing that those items that could be expected to be introduced and integrated at early points in the history of contact in this area only show up at Musqueam East in later times, at the same time as the range of goods available to this Musqueam community increases drastically, and Musqueam people began to become connected to European economic systems. It appears that artifacts of European origin are extremely scarce in the early levels of this site after initial contact. Based on historic documents, even before the diversity of goods available to Musqueam increased in the colonization and settlement period, there was still a high quantity of goods available for trade, particularly once Fort Langley was established in 1827. Why then is there little material evidence of the Musqueam in the excavated area of Stselax Village integrating European goods in any significant quantity before the colonial period, as they were certainly in supply and in use by other Northwest Coast groups? Table 7. Time Periods of Levels Based on Production Dates of Artifacts 39 Trade Period Level Years of Exploration 1774-1826 5a Fur Trade Years 1827-1858 a 4 3a 3 European Colonization and Settlementl858- onward 2 la 1 a Level 5 is the first level to produce contact goods in a context acceptable to the excavators and the author. These artifacts are unidentified glass fragments and a club sauce stopper. These could have entered the site during the early exploration period or during the Fort Langley years. The artifacts are unable to definitively date this level to one or the other period. Table 8. Goods Available in Different Trade Periods Trade Period Trade Goods Available Years of Exploration 1774 -1827 silver, abalone, beads, tobacco, files, iron, knives, chisels, tin, nails, buttons, cloth, brass, copper kettles, candlesticks, saws, swords, hatchets, copper, pewter rings, muskets, awls Above goods but also belts, blankets, combs, gun flints, fish hooks, needles, clay pipes, clothing, thread, soap, a wider variety of cloth colors and qualities, a greater variety of buttons, vermillion, buck shot, lead shot, guns and gun powder, tin pots and pans, religious items, traps Above goods but also ceramics and glass, agricultural equipment, a wider variety of household items and clothing particularly after 1900 when mail order catalogues were available Note: Data from Cook 1967; Pethic 1980; Vancouver 1984; Mcdonald n.d.; and Fraser 1960. Early Contact and Inter-Village Relations It is known that direct contact was likely not the first contact with Europeans for many groups. Harris (1994:592, 594) argues that smallpox epidemics were likely one of the first kinds of 'contact' that First Nations in the Strait of Georgia experienced. Using the explorers' journals and some additional historic sources, Harris traces an outbreak of smallpox from its point of Fur Trade Years 1827-1858 European Colonization and Settlement 1858- onward 40 origin at the mouth of the Columbia River, north along the Cowlitz and lower Chehalis Rivers to Puget Sound and the Strait of Georgia. Drawing on George Vancouver's journal and oral tradition from aboriginal informants he paints an image of the Strait of Georgia groups as decimated in numbers by 1782, just 4 years after the maritime fur trade began in Nootka Sound. Harris (1994:600) relates that Vancouver observed First Nations in this area only in small groups that avoided his party, and had impressions of the area being \"recently and severely depopulated.\" While some have argued that Vancouver's interpretation of 'depopulated' meant 'gone trading on the outer coast,' Harris points out that there is no record of this in the Coast Salish ethnographies, and that trade was a monopolized resource. Clearly, if Musqueam from the Strait of Georgia were relocating during certain months to access trade, some evidence of sought after materials would be expected at the permanent village site. While Harris argues for a single outbreak in the Strait of Georgia in post-contact times, Boyd uses some of the same oral evidence to argue for a second small-pox outbreak in this area between the years of 1800-1808 (1996:315). The two outbreak argument is supported by Musqueam oral tradition which also records two outbreaks, one before European contact and one after (Leona Sparrow, personal communication). What seems likely from Boyd and Harris' review of the journals and oral traditions is that the Strait of Georgia Nations, including Musqueam, had suffered an epidemic of smallpox during the years of extensive trade on the outer coast and immediately preceding Vancouver's arrival in the Strait of Georgia, then suffered another after a decade of contact. Linguistic data that records the Musqueam Village being named after the rushes that grew around the stream through the village in reference to Musqueam's ability to repopulate after a catastrophe just as the rushes multiplied could support this (Suttles 1987:127). 41 The dwindling numbers of groups living in the Gulf of Georgia may not have been in a position to access trade goods, or trade may have become irrelevant as societies struggled with the more fundamental concern of survival and restructuring. Smaller numbers of people also may have resulted in some houses being abandoned for periods of time, which could manifest as an absence of trade goods from this period in the archaeological record. This is consistent with the findings of this study, and is supported by the lack of evidence of early trade goods at this site. In addition, the avoidance of Vancouver's party by aboriginal groups in the area may be a result of aboriginal expectations of the outcome of any encounter. By this time, it seems likely that word of newcomers may have spread through routes similar to those the disease took. It is possible that groups experiencing previously unknown disease and loss may have avoided people who were different as a possible source of the plague killing their communities. Weightman discusses how initially Europeans were seen as supernatural, but soon their fallibility led to them being treated as people from a distant tribe (1972:70). This might help to explain the lack of early trade goods present in this part of Musqueam East. However, once more permanent ties were established and the perception of Europeans as supernatural was re-evaluated with the establishment of Fort Langley, trade goods would again be expected if the Musqueam were utilizing them. Fort Langley-Why Trade? If Musqueam people chose not to engage with, or were somehow inhibited from trading with the early explorers due to disease or other reasons, then how did they respond to the establishment of Fort Langley as a permanent HBC fort? The archaeological evidence suggests this is the period when some of the first contact goods could have been introduced to Stselax. This includes the glass club sauce stopper, the clay pipe fragment, and the glass and ceramic 42 plate fragments. It is interesting that only the clay pipe is recorded as an item distributed by traders. The glass and ceramics certainly became available with the arrival of the fort, but how did they enter the site if not by trade and why is there not more archaeological evidence of trade during a period when we have historical records of trade between Fort Langley and the Musqueam? A possible answer arises from one of the strategies the Fort Langley employees used in order to increase their comfort and strengthen their ties to local communities: marriage with aboriginal women (McNeill 1982; McDonald n.d.). By choosing to incorporate the Europeans into aboriginal marriages, some First Nations clearly saw something to gain from this new alliance. Carlson (1996:33) argues that Sto:lo groups inter-marrying with Europeans likely expected increased access and better terms in their future exchanges with the fort. When trade or marriage with the groups around Fort Langley are mentioned, blankets and guns are distinguished as the desired items (McNeilll982:42). Blankets were also used as bride price between aboriginal groups as recorded by missionary Thomas Crosby in the 1860's (Carlson 1996:19). This information about intermarriage reveals two important factors in examining the introduction of trade goods at Stselax during the years of the Fort Langley fur trade. First, that women may have been an important conduit for the introduction of European goods into local communities, and second, that one of the most important trade items recorded (blankets) is a material that could not be expected to be preserved in this site. Women. Households, and European Goods There is no direct evidence of intermarriage between Musqueam women and men from Fort Langley. However, women from other groups with social or family ties to the Musqueam may have provided a way for European non-trade items to flow to Musqueam households. 43 Suttles (1987:17,18) writes that marriages linked communities and allowed families to exchange wealth for the length of the marriage. I propose that this potential for exchange was realized in the transmission of European household goods into the homes of local families related by marriage. It would be unlikely for aboriginal women living in fort households not to share the new goods with their families as this may have reduced the value of these marriages on the part of the aboriginal participants. In addition, wives who did not maintain contact with their families in local villages would not have been an asset to traders in maintaining permanent and friendly trading relations and an emergency food supply. Therefore, it is still possible that the household glass and ceramic items entered Stselax as a result of the intermarriage of other groups with both the European traders and Musqueam. This scenario is consistent with post contact artifacts being used earliest in social and household contexts, represented by the pipe fragment, the glass stopper, and ceramic plate fragments. It is also consistent with the absence of ceramics (other than pipes) and glass being recorded as trade items. The Value of Blankets The European blanket is a clear substitute for the mountain goat/dog wool blankets already in use before contact and there is evidence that the Musqueam desired blankets as much as their neighbours who used them as bride price. Marriage may have increased access to blankets, but it was not necessary for access to blankets. Journals at Fort Langley do record some individual trading episodes with Musqueam individuals, including one transaction of seven beavers for one blanket (McDonald n.d.:59). Unfortunately, Stselax is not a wet site and blankets therefore could not survive the site formation processes. A possible explanation for the absence of files, beads, axes etc. in the earliest post-contact levels of this site is that blankets were not only highly prized, but were traded to the near exclusion of other goods. While it may seem hard 44 to believe that there would be a period represented by trade for little other than blankets, the demand for blankets is well documented and previous sections have established how strategic and selective First Nations groups were in their trading. According to Suttles, the most important function of the potlatch itself, among the Coast Salish, is the redistribution of wealth (1987:23). Suttles (1987:22,104) and Barnett (1938:130) record blankets as the most important form of wealth in the Coast Salish potlatching system. They had a practical value, were accessible in large but not unlimited numbers, could be divided and given away, and traditional blankets could be re-woven. Thus, blankets were a trade good that could convey aboriginal values and perform a function meaningful to the adopting culture, as in the use of tea cups and saucers in Alaska. This may be a clear situation of Musqueam values dominating interactions between Musqueam and Europeans. If the items that Musqueam desired were blankets to be used in potlatching, then the flow of European household goods through female relations and the dominance of blankets and cloth over other trade goods during the fur trade period are explanations that could account for both the archaeological record of few trade goods and the historic record of ongoing trade between the fort and the Musqueam. Resistance Late in the European colonization and settlement period, European artifacts associated with three main activities: fishing, personal ceremonial attire, and woodworking, are represented in the site. They co-occur with an extremely expanded diversity in the range of artifacts in the two most recent levels of the site. Unlike most of the expanded repertoire of goods, however, the artifacts associated with these three activities in particular had been available to the Musqueam throughout the fur trade years, and the years of exploration. The artifacts include a copper tinkler 45 modified from a thin piece of copper (likely a copper kettle), hand made lead fishing weights, metal or wood working files, mother of pearl and metal buttons, an iron rod, and an awl among others. Why were these items integrated only in the most recent levels of the site when they had been available for so long? While these artifacts also had aboriginal counterparts, like the blankets, Duff (1964:75) points out that \"habitual patterns of economic activity tend to resist change because they are usually linked with social customs and established rythyms of life.\" While blankets were part of the potlatch system, they were not tools in the same sense as sinkers and files were tools used in the practice of traditional economic activity, as a personal ceremonial ornament could be a tool in achieving spiritual power, or as a spindle whorl would be the tool used to produce the blankets. Suttles discusses the importance of both European and Native made blankets as wealth, citing the recorded demand for European blankets and the number of shorn dogs (domestic dog hair was used in the production of native blankets) mentioned in the journals (1998:194). This suggests traditional and European blankets may have been used in different contexts in potlatches. For example, there are photographs of both European and traditional blankets being given away at post-1900 Coast Salish potlatches (University of British Columbia Museum of Anthropology Archive:slides 309, 310). However, when the photographs show the ceremonial purpose of the potlatch, the participants are dressed only in traditional blankets, while guests are wearing European clothing and blankets (Cowichan naming ceremony, UBC MO A: slides 305, 306). Other examples include an Esquimalt mortuary ceremony where the effigies are dressed in traditional blankets but the witnesses are not (UBC MOA:slides 1442, 1458). In addition, Barnett (1938:123) records magic as being a part of hunting and fishing activities. This involved restricted behaviours on the part of the man performing the activity, and 46 restrictions on his wife as well. While European hunting materials are present at this site earlier than fishing or ceremonial objects, all these categories occur later than household items. The rituals associated with hunting and fishing provide an additional explanation for the relatively late introduction of European influences on these activities. These results demonstrate a choice made by Musqueam people to maintain purely Musqueam ways of producing their traditional wealth during the exploration, fur trade years, and early European colonization and settlement period, even though the ceremonially important products of the activities, including blankets, salmon, and cedar were traded. Musqueam maintained their own traditions of fishing, woodworking and ceremony without integrating European ideas or materials until the latest periods of contact involving settlement and colonial administration, when European ways of fishing and woodworking were also adopted, likely in order to access the cash economy. It is no coincidence that these are activities fundamental to Coast Salish, including Musqueam, ways of life. The results of this research support these activities as deeply intertwined with the Musqueam economic system and world view, a key element of which is the achievement of status through producing and giving away wealth, not acquiring it for personal use. Conclusions and Suggestions for Further Research Several factors played a role in the nature of contact between Musqueam and Europeans, however, Musqueam culture played the pivotal role in determining which European goods were integrated and how. There is an initial lack of trade items at Stselax that date from the earliest contact episodes. Disease and inter-village relationships may have inhibited the Musqueam from accessing trade goods at their earliest arrival on the Northwest Coast, or Musqueam people may not have chosen to use these items. In the next period, during which Fort Langley was in 47 operation, the integration of European goods appears based on Musqueam ideas of value and utility. Household goods and blankets appear to have been acquired to the exclusion of other items. It is thought that the household goods introduced to Stselax, including glass and ceramics, may have arrived along newly established connections of intermarriage between the traders and local women who also had ties to Musqueam families. The blankets are proposed as an important trade item for the Musqueam, as they were used in potlatching. The contextual use of blankets in potlatching provides evidence that the structuring principles of Musqueam agency involved maintaining or increasing traditional practices, and using new forms of wealth in ways consistent with aboriginal values and needs. Stselax material culture suggests a resistance to the introduction of European artifacts associated with woodworking, fishing, and personal ceremonial adornment. These are activities considered most essential to Musqueam economic and spiritual practices, and resistance and conservatism in integrating European artifacts into these activities is not surprising, but expected. Similar to Silliman's findings (2001), the choice to not use the available metal tools earlier is interpreted as a conscious decision to maintain Musqueam ways of doing these everyday, but fundamental, activities. The structuring principles for Musqueam agency changed through time from maintenance of aboriginal practices to adopting a wider variety of European material culture that assisted Musqueam in navigating the intruding and imposed economic, social and religious systems. Overall, this sample shows that Musqueam people were highly selective in the integration of outside goods at Stsleax preferring those with clear value and utility by Musqueam standards and resisting change in the tools used for key Musqueam activities in order to maintain consistency with a Musqueam worldview. The structuring principles revealed by this analysis show the 48 importance of Musqueam culture and decision making in determining the nature of contact between Europeans and Musqueam people. Further insight into the choices made in Musqueam selection of goods may come from a more sophisticated metallurgical analyses of the nails and other metal artifacts. Specifically, use of a scanning electron microscope may identify modified artifacts, metal sources, and alloys that were unrecognized by eye in this study. Some conservation work is also desperately needed if these metal artifacts are to survive another decade. Ethnographic work carried out with Musqueam community members and focusing on different uses for European artifacts is an important avenue for research. Because the horizontal control of the post- contact component of this site is so poor, some understanding of how items were used may make up for the loss of records of association between artifacts. Elders in the community may be able to remember the ways parents or grandparents used particular artifacts. Historic photographs were briefly reviewed for this paper, but an in-depth examination may reveal more data on when and how European items were used by Musqueam people. Also a social history of the Charles House itself would provide a link between Stselax Village, Musqueam East (the archaeological remains of that village), and the contemporary Musqueam village that now thrives on the same site. Finally, full and comprehensive examination of the DhRt 2 collection in its entirety would be extremely informative about the impact of and reactions to contact, as well as pre-contact dynamics and processes. In particular, a study exploring the post-contact sample in its entirety, including non-European artifacts, would shed light onto local contact processes. This kind of comparative analysis could reveal important aspects of agency in Musqueam use of traditional versus European materials. There is also an extensive pre-contact component to this 49 site which has not been fully analyzed. The vast number of existing student reports, archaeological materials, and site maps including contour maps provide a rich source of information for future undergraduate projects for laboratory classes, as well as other MA research. A large amount of the artifacts excavated from this site are undocumented and are not catalogued. A complete cataloguing of the artifacts would give the Musqueam community a more complete sense of the physical pieces of their heritage stored at UBC, and allow better access for future researchers. PhD research would be particularly suited to the broad scope and vast amounts of data related to this site, as a comprehensive and coherent analysis of the entire site could reveal connections and processes missed in projects that focus on small samples of the site or artifacts. Continued research means that the contemporary Musqueam community will be able to learn more from this collection that was excavated from their lands over 50 years ago. 50 References Cited. Abbott, N. . 1955 Preliminary Results of Archaeological Investigations at Musqueam, Vancouver, BC. Unpublished undergraduate paper, on file, Laboratory of Archaeology, Department of Anthropology and Sociology, University of British Columbia. Adams, William. H. 2002 Machine Cut Nails and Wire Nails: American Production and Use for Dating 19th Century and Early 20th Century Sites. Historical Archaeology 36(4): 66-88. Barnett, Homer 1938 The Coast Salish of Canada. American Anthropologist 40:118-141. Barrett, John C. 2000 A Thesis on Agency. In Agency in Archaeology, edited by M. A. Dobres and J. Robb pp33-45. Routledge, New York and London. Borden, Charles E. 1950-67 Original Field Notes, Maps, and Artifact Catalogues, on file, Laboratory of Archaeology, Department of Anthropology and Sociology, University of British Columbia. Burley, David V. 1989 Function, Meaning, and Context: Ambiguities in Ceramic use by the Metis of the Northwestern Plains. Historical Archaeology 23(1): 97-106. Carlson, Keith T. 1996 Sto:lo Exchange Dynamics. Native Studies Review 11(1): 5-44. Carlson, Keith T. (editor) 2001 A Sto.lo-Coast Salish Historical Atlas. Douglas &amp; Mclntyre Ltd., Vancouver, B.C. and Sto:lo Nation, Chilliwack, B.C. Collard, Elizabeth 1984 Nineteenth Century Pottery and Porcelain in Canada. McGill-Queen's University Press, Kingston and Montreal. Cook, James 1967 The Voyage of the Resolution and Discovery, 1776-1780, edited by J. C. Beaglehole. The Hakluyt Society, Cambridge University Press, Glasgow. Duff, Wilson 1964 The Indian History of British Columbia, Volume 1 Impact of the White Man. Anthropology in British Columbia, Memoir No. 5. Provincial Museum of British Columbia, Victoria. 51 Fisher, Robin 1992 Contact and Conflict: Indian Relations in British Columbia, 1774-1890. 2nd ed. UBC Press, Vancouver, B.C. Foster, David 1961 Post Contact Goods from DhRt 2 (Musqueam Site). Unpublished undergraduate paper, on file, Laboratory of Archaeology, Department of Anthropology and Sociology, University of British Columbia. Fraser, Simon 1960 The Journals and Letters of Simon Fraser, edited by W. Kay Lamb. Macmillan, Toronto. Gillies, Norman A. 1957 Archaeological Investigation at Stselax Village Musqueam East Unpublished undergraduate paper, on file, Laboratory of Archaeology, Department of Anthropology and Sociology, University of British Columbia. Harris, Cole 1994 Voices of Disaster: Smallpox Around the Strait of Georgia in 1782. Ethnohistory 41(4):591-626. Harris, Cole 1997 The Making of the Lower Mainland. In The Resettlement of British Columbia: Essays on Colonialism and Geographical Change, edited by Cole Harris, pp68-102. UBC Press, Vancouver, B.C. Hobler, Phil 1986 Measures of the Acculturative Response to Trade on the Central Coast of British Columbia. Historical Archaeology, 20:16-26. IMACS 473 1992 Historic Ceramics. Electronic Document, www.anthro.utah.edu/IMACs/473-Ceramics.pdf, accessed June 3, 2004. Inter Mountain Antiquities Computer System user's guide. IMACS 474 1992 Cartridges. Electronic Document, www.anthro.utah.edu/IMACs/747-Cartidges.pdf, accessed June 3, 2004. Inter Mountain Antiquities Computer System user's guide. IMACS 475 2001 Buttons. Electronic Document, www.anthro.utah.edu/IMACs/475-Buttons.pdf, accessed June 3, 2004. Inter Mountain Antiquities Computer System user's guide. 52 Jackson, Louise M. 1991a mter-ethnic Contact and Nineteenth Century Ceramic Distribution. Canadian Journal of Archaeology 15:129-141. 1991b Nineteenth Century British Ceramics: A Key to Cultural Dynamics in Southwestern Alaska. Unpublished PhD dissertation. Department of Anthropology, University of California, Los Angeles. Jones, Olive R and C. Sullivan. 1985 The Parks Canada Glass Glossary for the Description of Flat Glass and Closures. Studies in Archaeology, Architecture and History. Parks Canada, Ottawa. Kelly, Maureen 1952 A Study of Archaeological Deposits at Stelax Village, BC. Unpublished undergraduate paper, on file, Laboratory of Archaeology, Department of Anthropology and Sociology, University of British Columbia. Leeson, Mary M. 1957 Archaeological Investigations at Tselax Village, Musqueam Reserve, Vancouver, B.C. Unpublished undergraduate paper, on file, Laboratory of Archaeology, Department of Anthropology and Sociology, University of British Columbia. Lightfoot, Kent G. 1995 Culture Contact Studies: Redefining the Relationship Between Prehistoric and Historical Archaeology. American Antiquity, 60(2): 199-217. Little, Richard 1957 Archaeological Investigations at Tselax Village, Musqueam Indian Reserve, Vancouver, BC 1956-57. Unpublished undergraduate paper, on file, Laboratory of Archaeology, Department of Anthropology and Sociology, University of British Columbia. Mackenzie, Alexander 1802 Voyages from Montreal, on the River St. Laurence, Through the continent of North America, to the Frozen and pacific Oceans in the Years 1789 and 1793, edited by T. Caldwell and W. Davies, London. Maas, Alexandra 1994 The Adoption and Use of 19th Century Ceramics at Old Bella Bella, British Columbia. Unpublished MA thesis, on file, Department of Archaeology, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C. Maclachlan, Morag 1998 Introduction. In The Fort Langley Journals 1827-30, edited by Morag Maclachlan, pp.3-19. UBC Press, Vancouver B.C. 53 McDonald, A. Journal of Hudson's Bay Company Kept at Fort Langley During the Years 1827-9. University of British Columbia Rare Books and Special Collections, Vancouver, B.C. McNeill, Janet 1982 Ft. Langley- A Case Study of the Relations between the Fur Traders and Native Women. Unpublished graduating essay, Department of History, University of British Columbia Rare Books and Special Collections, Vancouver B.C. Moreau, J. F. 1998 Traditions and Cultural Transformations: European Copper-Based kettles and Jesuit Rings from 17th Century Amerindian Sites. North American Archaeologist 19(1): 1-11. Morton, J. Fort Langley: An Overview of the Operations of a Diversified Fur Trade Post 1848-1858. Environment Canada, Canada Parks Service, Ottawa. Newell, Dianne 1989 Introduction. In The Development of the Pacific Salmon Canning Industry: A Grown Man's Game, edited by Dianne Newell, pp.3-20. McGill-Queen's University Press, Montreal. Pethic, Derek 1980 First Approaches to the Northwest Coast. Douglas and Mclntyre, Vancouver, BC. Rogers, J.Daniel and Samuel. M. Wilson (editors). 1993 Ethnohistory and Archaeology: Approaches to Post Contact Change in the Americas. Plenum Press, New York. Silliman, Stephen 2001 Agency, Practical Politics and the Archaeology of Culture Contact. Journal of Social Archaeology 1(2): 190-209. Sussman, Lynne 1979 Spode/Copeland Transfer Printed Patterns Found at 20 Hudson's Bay Company Sites. Canadian Historic Sites: Occasional Papers in Archaeology and History, No. 22. Parks Canada, Ottawa. Suttles, Wayne 1987 Coast Salish Essays. Talonbooks, Vancouver. Suttles, Wayne 1998 The Ethnographic Significance of the Journals. In The Fort Langley Journals, 1827-30, edited by Morag Maclachlan, pp. 163-210. UBC Press, Vancouver. 54 Tennant, Paul 1990 Aboriginal People and Aboriginal Claims: The Indian Land Question in British Columbia, 1849-1989. UBC Press, Vancouver, B.C. Vancouver, George 1984 A Voyage of Discovery to the North Pacific Ocean and Round the World 1791-1795, edited by W. Kay Lamb. Cambridge University Press, London. Weightman, Barbara A. 1972 The Musqueam Reserve: A Case Study of the Indian Social Milieu in an Urban Environment. Unpublished PhD dissertation, Department of Geography, University of Washington. University Microfilms, Ann Arbor. Wilson, Samuel M. 1993 Structure and History: Combining Archaeology and Ethnohistory in the Contact Period Carribean. In Ethnohistory and Archaeology: Approaches to Post Contact Change in the Americas, edited by J. Daniel. Rogers and Samuel. M. Wilson, pp. 19-30. Plenum Press, New York. "@en
<https://open.library.ubc.ca/cIRcle/collections/ubctheses/831/items/1.0058399>